Sin City 2 update

[Velorath]

From an article here

"One of the ideas we had was to do A Dame to Kill for Next." Rodridguez stated. "We also didn't want people to read the book and know what was going to happen. So Frank is coming up with some new stuff, that will be intertwined in that and some other storylines that he has always wanted to do. So I was like, 'Lets do it as part of A Dame to Kill For, then if you want to make it a separate book you can always do that.' That's what's been really exciting... he's only been teasing me about what that is so I don't even know. But the new things he's told me are really exciting."

Rodriguez added: "As soon as we have it, we can start shooting because it's on greenscreen. He would have drawings with it and we could start shooting pretty much a few weeks later. As soon as Frank's done and we're done with Grindhouse [a joint film project with Tarantino] we could go right into it."

Will there be new characters? "There are so many actors we want to work with actually, but we were like, 'We don't have a part for this actor [Frank] has to create one.' We can't reveal anything that takes all the fun out of it."

"Also, three weeks from now I'll change my mind and I'll feel like a complete idiot." Miller added.

I'm kind of torn about Miller writing new material for Sin City 2.  I understand the reasoning behind it, and not wanting people who have read the books to know exactly what will happen, it's just...  Miller's writing in recent years has been almost complete shit.  I see him the same way I see Claremont.  His writing style hasn't evolved since the 80's, and he should have just went out when he was on top.  Instead he writes shit the reads almost like it's unintentional self-parody.

Maybe I'm just overreacting in a typical comic book fan sort of way.  Just please don't fuck this up Miller.

[HaemishM]

After DK2, I'd agree with you. The All-Star Batman and Robin... the first issue was good, the second left me scratching my head.

[stray]

This isn't about the second movie, but I bought the newer edition of the Sin City DVD.

Besides the theatrical release and the usual fare of "making of" extras, you get:

A complete copy of the Hard Goodbye (maybe 150 pages or so)

A recut, extended, and unrated version with 20 more minutes of footage (147 minutes total, seperated into 4 stories).

Another version -- All Green Screened (Umm...Ok).

2 commentaries, one with Miller and Rodriguez, the other with Rodriguez and Tarantino (there's also a 14 minute long take of Quentin, Clive Owen, and Del Toro's scene on the disc). The first commentary, of course, is more comic and story oriented. The second, film oriented.

A secondary audio track with an Austin film audience's reactions throughout (which is pretty cool if you ask me).

It's worth it for the recut and the Miller/Rodiguez commentary, if anything. Having a copy of the Hard Goodbye is a plus as well, if you don't already have it. The last DVD was far too stripped down and basic, so just having some commentaries is a welcome sight.

[Johny Cee]

Rodriguez has generally done DVD extras really well.  "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" had not only a walk through his effects studio,  where he on the fly composed some music the way he would for a film, but the great cooking short where he shows how to make Agent Sands favorite dish....

Even the "From Dusk till Dawn" DVD had a pretty interesting documentary.  That was at the same time he was having union problems due to the way he shifts personel around and the fact that he likes to do almost everything.  He was breaking a million differenct union regs,  and I think they were trying to boycot his production.  (It's been a while though....  might have some of that wrong.)

I can't feel sorry for the US film industry at all for the way things are going.  Films are increasingly being moved out of the country not just because of cost,  but the crazy union restrictions on how they do their jobs.

[stray]

Yeah, I'm not even the biggest fan of Rodriguez actually, but his DVD's are usually done well (which is why the first edition of Sin City disappointed me so much). He's also very, very enthusiastic about what he's doing, and knows how to talk film, so even if it's a movie like Once Upon the Time in Mexico that I don't really like a lot, I still enjoy listening to him talk about it. He's also a good guitar player and musician, totally above par in his knowledge of post production, so hearing him talk about this stuff is cool too.

That Sin City is a film of his that I really dig makes it all the better.

[Margalis]

I'm confused. Is that really the problem with Claremont, that he hasn't evolved? Are you sure it isn't just that he has gotten MUCH MUCH worse.

IIRC when he started up on XMen again Slutlocke and Jean had switched powers and he didn't even bother explaining for a year or more.

Rodriguez seems extremely hands-on. I love those types of guys. He really want the job done right. (Note: I am not actually a big fan of his either, but I can respect his attitude.)

[Ironwood]

All I wanna say is that DK2 was so very very bad that I put it in the garage after I'd read it.

In the hope that rats gnaw on it.

Bad.

[Velorath]

I'm confused. Is that really the problem with Claremont, that he hasn't evolved? Are you sure it isn't just that he has gotten MUCH MUCH worse.

IIRC when he started up on XMen again Slutlocke and Jean had switched powers and he didn't even bother explaining for a year or more.

I think that was partly an editorial decision though.  Wasn't that part of the event where all the x-books had a six month gap and they didn't tell you what happened in that gap until later (Synch dying in Gen X, Pete Wisdom running Excalibur)?

[HaemishM]

It isn't just that Claremont hasn't evolved, it's that he seems to be trying to create way too many new characters. Every time he's come back to the book, he takes it upon himself to almost completely forget about good villain characters and throws in new characters. Like for a time, it was a whole group of characters who were these tough ass new type mutants who spent like a year's worth of books just holed up in a building. And they were at war with other mutants or something. Then either he or Marvel just fucking forgot about them. COMPLETELY. When he comes back to the book, he creates an entirely new set of villain characters/race/etc. that are almost exactly like the last, but worse, then proceeds to forget about them. His subplots are interminably long, to the point that I think even he forgets about them.

The New Excalibur is mediocre at best. His writing is a bit laborious, and I continually see characters spouting the EXACT SAME SPEECHES over and over again. And they do it in normal conversation.

Rodriguez is one of my favorite directors, even when I don't like the movie, like say Sharkboy and Lava Girl or Once Upon a Time in Mexico. But the man can direct. And he does so by cutting out a lot of the stupid bullshit that Hollywood insists you have to have on a movie, like all the union regs. FUCK the unions, IMO. But they are just a part of why Hollywood movies are ridiculously overpriced.

I'm sad that I'll now have to buy another edition of Sin City on DVD, but then I only payed $6 for the edition I have now from Netflix previously viewed.

[Velorath]

It isn't just that Claremont hasn't evolved, it's that he seems to be trying to create way too many new characters. Every time he's come back to the book, he takes it upon himself to almost completely forget about good villain characters and throws in new characters. Like for a time, it was a whole group of characters who were these tough ass new type mutants who spent like a year's worth of books just holed up in a building. And they were at war with other mutants or something. Then either he or Marvel just fucking forgot about them. COMPLETELY. When he comes back to the book, he creates an entirely new set of villain characters/race/etc. that are almost exactly like the last, but worse, then proceeds to forget about them. His subplots are interminably long, to the point that I think even he forgets about them.

The New Excalibur is mediocre at best. His writing is a bit laborious, and I continually see characters spouting the EXACT SAME SPEECHES over and over again. And they do it in normal conversation.

I agree with all you just said.  I think if you go back and read a lot of his old stuff though you'd see a lot of the same flaws he has today.  Go back and read a lot of that stuff and most of it probably won't be as good as you remembered it.  Not only that but most ongoing books these days are geared more towards short runs (comprised mostly of 6 issue arcs) by a creative team rather than long ones.  Once sales dip past a certain point it's time to shuffle people around again, but Claremont still writes like he can just come back to plots and characters 30-40 issues in the future.  I see Claremont in much the same way as I see Stan Lee.  They were good for their time, but their spots in comic book history have more to do with how they influenced the industry rather than their skills as writers.  Neither's writing really stands up to the test of time all that well.

If I'm trying to get someone interested in comics, I don't recommend any Claremont stuff to them, much like I wouldn't recommend Dragonlance novels to adults no matter how much I might have enjoyed them as a kid (I also don't typically recommend Miller to people either mostly because the art in DKR doesn't appeal to a lot of non-comic fans).  Alan Moore's early stuff has aged pretty well.  I'd recommend Watchmen and V for Vendetta to new readers as well as a lot of his recent stuff.  That's the kind of thing I think of when I ask myself who a good writer is, not just who was a good comic book writer for their time.  To pick out some less obvious examples I'd throw in Dematteis, Giffen, Peter David, Stan Sakai, and hell, even Don Rosa.  These guys understand the industry (or in the case of Sakai and Rosa, understand the audience they're writing for).  Claremont and Miller lost touch with it somewhere along the way.

[Margalis]

I dunno, I read my old Xmen comics from time to time and they still have it to me.

[HaemishM]

I'm going to have to disagree with you about Miller. I think a new comic reader should be exposed to The Dark Knight Returns (though not its sequel - no one should be exposed to that) because of just how well he nailed the character. 300 and Sin City are also fantastic reads, and even the earlier Martha Washington stuff is worth reading. Not everything he's done has been spot on, but those in particular have been fantastic at doing what they set out to do. His Daredevil and Ronin runs are also required reading in my opinion.

For Claremont, though, I really wouldn't recommend anyone read past the Paul Smith days in X-Men. Just skip all the shit after issue #175 and go straight to the Morrison run (for just the plain X-Men books).

[Hoax]

Did Slutlocke ever get her own book?  Because I would buy that...

[Velorath]

I'm going to have to disagree with you about Miller. I think a new comic reader should be exposed to The Dark Knight Returns (though not its sequel - no one should be exposed to that) because of just how well he nailed the character. 300 and Sin City are also fantastic reads, and even the earlier Martha Washington stuff is worth reading. Not everything he's done has been spot on, but those in particular have been fantastic at doing what they set out to do. His Daredevil and Ronin runs are also required reading in my opinion.

Yeah, I know that most comic book fans will disagree with me on DKR.  Don't get me wrong I think it's a good story, but the first time I read it (I was pretty young mind you), it didn't really hold my attention.  I disliked the art to the point of distraction for one thing.  I just don't think a lot of new readers especially would "get" it.  These days you can pick up just about any Batman book and see the Dark Knight.  Batman is actually a fairly easy character to do right.  Back when DKR came out though a lot of people still had the image of Adam West in their mind, and Batman and Robin guest starring in episodes of Scooby Doo when they thought about Batman (it wasn't until a few years later that the Tim Burton movie would come out).  DKR made the darker version of Batman popular again, and helped start the so-called "grim and gritty" era of comics which I think is of more note than the actual story.

[Margalis]

Story-wise year one was better IMO.

I thought Superman was actually captured better than Batman in DKR. These are just nitpicks because it was very good, but I did have a problem with Batman finally vowing to kill the Joker. I mean, it's been what, 40 years of the Joker killing people non-stop. It doesn't work because Batman is supposed to be a gritty, no-nonsense character. I can see Superman letting some villain live to commit more crimes over and over again, because superman is a big softy, but Batman.

I had the same problem in the big earthquake story where Joker killed Gordon's wife or whoever she was. I mean, at some point wouldn't you just do the world a huge fucking favor and put a bullet in his head already?

Guys like Superman and Spiderman and nice guys deep down. Batman really isn't. So it annoys me when he keeps making nice-guy mistakes. There is never any real explanation other than some bullshit like "if we break the law he will win." Who gives a fuck? He'll be dead and you'll have saved the lives of hundreds of people.

[Velorath]

Story-wise year one was better IMO.

I thought Superman was actually captured better than Batman in DKR. These are just nitpicks because it was very good, but I did have a problem with Batman finally vowing to kill the Joker. I mean, it's been what, 40 years of the Joker killing people non-stop. It doesn't work because Batman is supposed to be a gritty, no-nonsense character. I can see Superman letting some villain live to commit more crimes over and over again, because superman is a big softy, but Batman.

I had the same problem in the big earthquake story where Joker killed Gordon's wife or whoever she was. I mean, at some point wouldn't you just do the world a huge fucking favor and put a bullet in his head already?

Guys like Superman and Spiderman and nice guys deep down. Batman really isn't. So it annoys me when he keeps making nice-guy mistakes. There is never any real explanation other than some bullshit like "if we break the law he will win." Who gives a fuck? He'll be dead and you'll have saved the lives of hundreds of people.

Batman's not nice, but I think it's been pretty firmly established for a while now that he doesn't kill either.  It's more of a psychological thing for him rather than just him trying to be a nice guy.

edit:  More to the point we know the real reason most superheroes don't kill is because then the writers would just have to create new villains every month.  Captain America wanted to join the army before he even knew about the Super Soldier Serum.  Chances are he would have been expected to kill people, and yet most writers write him as being completely unwilling to kill.

If Batman had killed the Joker it would have just been someone else killing people.  No one wants to read a Batman comic where all his villains are dead and he just stays at home at night playing Poker with Alfred and Robin in the Batcave.

[Margalis]

Well, this is the problem with comics that last 50 years or something. How many times has the Joker gone to jail and escaped? You figure people would wise up at some point. Vowing not to kill is pretty silly when it's costing innocent lives over and over and over again. Especially Gordon, what the hell is up with him. The guy already paralyzed your daughter.

But that's just a general problem with comics. My problem was in DKR Batman finally decides to kill Joker - only a couple decades too late there Bats!

[stray]

It's the problem with serials in general.

Want a one stop, final word Batman? Well, I guess there's always the Count of Monte Cristo.

[Llava]

Well, this is the problem with comics that last 50 years or something. How many times has the Joker gone to jail and escaped? You figure people would wise up at some point. Vowing not to kill is pretty silly when it's costing innocent lives over and over and over again. Especially Gordon, what the hell is up with him. The guy already paralyzed your daughter.

But that's just a general problem with comics. My problem was in DKR Batman finally decides to kill Joker - only a couple decades too late there Bats!

But he doesn't kill him.  He paralyzes him, but doesn't finish it.  Joker finishes it himself.

I'll be brutally, shockingly honest here:
I didn't like DKR all that much.  Sure, it was a good story, but it wasn't the Batman I imagine.  I, also, disliked the art to the point of distraction.  Altogether, if people didn't make such a HUGE deal about it, it'd be fairly forgettable to me.

The Batman I imagine, when I'm thinking of Batman, was portrayed very well in the JLA "Tower of Babel" storyline, where R'as Al-Ghul steals top secret files from Batman's computer containing "contingency plans" for each member of the JLA should they go rogue.  I think one of the gripes I had about the DKR Batman was his willingness, borderline enthusiasm, to inflict his obsession on others.  The Batman I know always, always wants to spare others the life he's led- which is why he's always reluctant to induct someone new into the "bat-family".  They have to leave him virtually no choice.  But the DKR Batman, "Sure, I'll form a street gang. Why not?"  Not my Batman, sorry.

[stray]

"Bruce Wayne" doesn't want others joining his lifestyle. Batman has nothing to do with it.

He embraces the gangs (he didn't "form" them btw) because they open his eyes to this realization....That Batman will go on no matter what "Bruce Wayne" wants. So he embraces it, harnesses it, and keeps it in check. Bruce Wayne can die, but Batman can't, so he takes the job of leader while he can. It's better than the alternative at least.

Then again, I haven't read DKR in awhile, so maybe I'm full of shit.

[Margalis]

But he doesn't kill him.  He paralyzes him, but doesn't finish it.  Joker finishes it himself.

Yeah yeah but he vowed to kill him - he just didn't follow through. That vow was 3 decades too late.

I think one of the gripes I had about the DKR Batman was his willingness, borderline enthusiasm, to inflict his obsession on others.  The Batman I know always, always wants to spare others the life he's led- which is why he's always reluctant to induct someone new into the "bat-family". 

Given that Batman has had 3 or 4 Robins, a Batgirl, a Batdog and some other crap like that he isn't doing a very good job in that regard. In fact, he may be the *worst* at that out of ALL superheroes.

I mean, does Superman have a "super-family?" (Other than people related to him) Spider-Man doesn't have a Spider-family - there is no Spider-dog.

Now you can say that some people like Batgirl were inspired by Batman and he didn't have much control over them, but the fact is he doesn't have to have any bat-family at all. And he certainly doesn't need to keep getting new Robins. The whole "boy wonder" thing always seemed really incongruous with the supposedly brooding nature of Batman. It's really sort of a weird, Greek love style relationship.

[stray]

there is no Spider-dog.

But...There was Peter Porker, and Spider-Ham. :D


Heh, don't bother responding. He was in an Alt-Universe or something like that.

The whole "boy wonder" thing always seemed really incongruous with the supposedly brooding nature of Batman. It's really sort of a weird, Greek love style relationship.

It works whenever Robin is written like the gangs in DKR were (i.e. as someone Batman felt responsible to control and teach). The "boy wonder" crap doesn't.

Robin was just like what the gangs were --- They were going to go on doing what they were doing without Batman or not....Therefore Batman chose the lesser of two evils and supported them.

The idea in itself isn't bad though. It just depends on how it's written.

[Llava]

Given that Batman has had 3 or 4 Robins, a Batgirl, a Batdog and some other crap like that he isn't doing a very good job in that regard. In fact, he may be the *worst* at that out of ALL superheroes.

That's because he's mismanaged.

But he didn't want Dick Grayson to become Robin- Grayson practically forced him.  Ditto for Jason Todd.  I never did hear about Tim Drake's intro to being Robin, though, so it could've started at that point.

And at numerous times throughout the Batman series, he tries to shut down the "bat family".  The whole "Bruce Wayne: Murderer?" arc shows that well.

And about there being no Super-family or Spider-family: Well, there have been a bunch of Supergirls, but aside from that you're right- because Spider-Man and Superman have powers that automatically bar just about anyone from joining up with 'em.  Batman, however, can train people.  Additionally, Spider-Man doesn't have the leader mentality.  Superman certainly does, and you could even argue that the JLA is his "Super-family".

[Velorath]

And about there being no Super-family or Spider-family: Well, there have been a bunch of Supergirls, but aside from that you're right- because Spider-Man and Superman have powers that automatically bar just about anyone from joining up with 'em.  Batman, however, can train people.  Additionally, Spider-Man doesn't have the leader mentality.  Superman certainly does, and you could even argue that the JLA is his "Super-family".

Well, as you mentioned there have been Supergirls.  There's also been Krypto, Superboy, Steel, and Power Girl to an extent.  I think the whole "family" thing is much more DC than Marvel.  Flash, Green Lantern, and Wonder Woman all have one to some extent.  Part of it I guess is just a throwback to simpler times, when it wasn't an issue that Batman might be endangering Robin because all those decades ago it would have been unheard of in comics to have a character's teenage sidekick beaten and blown up.  You could toss in characters like Batwoman, because you're just writing a comic book for kids.

Now these days Robin is an established part of the mythos.  Anytime a Robin is written out of the books, there are going to be fans asking for a new Robin regardless of whether or not it makes sense for Batman to keep adopting teenage boys and training them to fight crime.  There are fans out there right now clamoring for a return of Batwoman (not Batgirl mind you) for seemingly no real reason other than the fact that there used to be one and some fans just like to see old ideas recycled.

[Margalis]

Well, as you mentioned there have been Supergirls.  There's also been Krypto, Superboy, Steel, and Power Girl to an extent. 

Superboy and supergirl were blood relatives though, at least from the same planet.

Now these days Robin is an established part of the mythos.  Anytime a Robin is written out of the books, there are going to be fans asking for a new Robin regardless of whether or not it makes sense for Batman to keep adopting teenage boys and training them to fight crime.  There are fans out there right now clamoring for a return of Batwoman (not Batgirl mind you) for seemingly no real reason other than the fact that there used to be one and some fans just like to see old ideas recycled.

What I find interesting is that Robin typically plays a small part in most of the good Batman stories, is is absent from them entirely. He wasn't in Year One, or The Killing Joke, or any of the "Legend of the Dark Knight" series (or whatever it was called - launched in early 90s)

[Velorath]

Superboy and supergirl were blood relatives though, at least from the same planet.

Well, the current Superboy is technically a clone made with Superman and Luthor's DNA.